http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n2.

44393

Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos

of Classroom Teaching*

Supervisión colaborativa docente a través de clases grabadas en video

Sandra Mari Kaneko-Marques**2

Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho,” Araraquara, Brazil

The main objective of this paper is to briefly present roles of different teacher supervisors according to
distinct models, highlighting the importance of collaborative dialogues supported by video recordings.
This paper will present results from a qualitative study of an English as a foreign language teacher edu-
cation course in Brazil. The results indicated that collaborative supervision was an efficient tool to ad-
dress adversities within educational contexts and that student teachers who observed their pedagogical
actions through videos became more reflective and self-evaluative, as they provided a deeper analysis
regarding their practice. With collaborative supervision, teacher candidates can be encouraged to rec-
ognize and understand the complexities of language learning and teaching both locally and globally.

Key words: Collaborative reflection, post-observation session, teacher supervision.

El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar diferentes roles de profesor supervisor según modelos distintos
y destacar la importancia de diálogos colaborativos con apoyo de grabaciones de video. Para lograrlo,
se muestran resultados de un estudio cualitativo desarrollado en un curso de formación de profesores
de inglés como lengua extranjera en Brasil. Los resultados indicaron que la supervisión colaborativa
fue eficiente frente a la adversidad de contextos educativos. Se concluyó que los estudiantes-profesores
que observaron sus acciones pedagógicas a través de videos se volvieron más reflexivos y lograron
autoevaluarse, ya que hacían un profundo análisis de su práctica. Con supervisión colaborativa, se
alienta a futuros profesores a reconocer y comprender las complejidades de la enseñanza y aprendizaje
local y globalmente.

Palabras clave: reflexión colaborativa, sesiones de post-observación, supervisión docente.

* This article is based on the PhD study entitled, “The process of pedagogical practice (re)construction of pre-service English language teach-
ers,” which was supervised by Prof. Dr. Maria Helena Vieira-Abrahão and financed by FAPESP (number 08/53911-2).
** E-mail: sandrak@fclar.unesp.br
How to cite this article (APA, 6th ed.): Kaneko-Marques, S. M. (2015). Reflective teacher supervision through videos of classroom teaching.
PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(2), 63-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n2.44393.

This article was received on July 11, 2014, and accepted on January 30, 2015.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License. Consultation is possible at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79 63
Kaneko-Marques
Introduction
Within the context of language teacher education,
teaching practice has been analyzed from different
perspectives. Traditional perspectives conceive it
as training, that is, a teaching activity is a moment
to exteriorize the knowledge and skills acquired by
teachers, who should demonstrate efficiency when
applying techniques and strategies in their language
classrooms (Freeman, 2009).
Burns and Richards (2009), Richards (1998),
Wallace (1991), Williams (2001), and Zeichner
(2008) argue that categorizing professional teacher
preparation as training reduces teacher education
to the mere application of strategies and techniques
created and sustained by external researchers who
are distant from the needs and particularities of a
determined educational context.
In reflective language teacher education, teaching
practice occupies a relevant formative place because
it is seen as one of the main scenarios for systematic
observation, analysis, reflection, assessment, and
action concerning language teaching and learning.
In addition, it has become a context in which
prospective teachers can reflect on their own practice,
aiming at language teaching, learning optimization
and continuous self-professional development.
According to Gebhard (2009), other teaching
practice objectives in initial teacher education include
developing teachers’ knowledge about school and
classroom realities, improving teaching abilities and
competences for professional practice, stimulating
systematic observation and reflection about their
pedagogical actions, and providing opportunities for
future teachers to engage in collaborative projects.
Given that teaching practice is a relevant context
for observation, analysis, and reflection, teacher
supervision plays an important role in this process
because it should be able to stimulate student teachers
to reflect on their own practice if they take the leading
role in problem solving and decision making (Burns
64 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
& Richards, 2009). Alarcão, Leitão, and Roldão (2009)
affirm that different supervision approaches are
directly related to conceptions of teacher education.
Because there are various models of language teacher
supervision, it is relevant to distinguish supervision
for developmental purposes, “which is often seen as
collaborative model” (Young, 2009, p. 2), and that for
evaluative reasons, which is usually associated with
prescriptive approaches.
In this paper, I aim to present and discuss the roles
of teacher supervisors according to different models
of supervision, highlighting collaborative dialogue
between supervisors and student teachers in post-
observation sessions supported by video recordings
based on results obtained in a qualitative study.
One of the goals of this investigation was to
understand how future teachers evaluated their
pedagogical actions and how they justified their
decisions and solved problems in their teaching
practice. In order to attain this goal, student teachers’
classes were observed and video-recorded, and these
recordings were used as input for post-observation
reflective sessions with the researcher, who also
played the role of a supervisor. It should be mentioned
that for the purposes of this paper, only data involving
class observations and post-observation sessions will
be discussed because our main goal is to reflect on
the collaborative dialogue between supervisors and
student teachers when discussing their pedagogical
actions during teaching practice in post-observation
sessions enhanced by videotaped lessons.
The research data included teaching practice
reflective journals, video-recorded class observations,
and post-observation reflective sessions. Class
recordings are commonly used in teacher supervision
to supplement observations and to enrich post-
observation conferences (Sewall, 2009). Based on
Sewall’s point of view, these recordings were used to
support discussions and reflections between student
teachers and their researcher/supervisor.
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching
In the next sections, some relevant topics
concerning teaching practice in language teacher
education will be presented in order to discuss
different models of supervision and supervisors’
roles. Then, we will briefly describe the investigation
design to examine information regarding its rationale,
methodology, and the instruments used for data
collection. After that, some of the collected data and
results for student teachers’ teaching practice and
post-observation sessions will be discussed.
Teaching Practice in Pre-Service
Language Teacher Education
In this section, we will present various authors
and their conceptions of reflective teaching. Then,
the purposes and characteristics of teaching practice
in teacher education courses in Brazil will be briefly
discussed.
Previous studies (Batista, 2007; Celani, 2000;
Sturm, 2008; Vieira-Abrahão, 2001) have indicated
that English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher
education courses still struggle to coherently balance
theory and practice in order to enable future teachers
to reflect critically on their pedagogical decisions and
to theorize from their own practice by conducting
their own studies. As Kumaravadivelu (2006) argues,
reflection and autonomy are key ways for teachers
to become researchers in their own classrooms.
When they recognize their potential to theorize from
their own practice and practice what they theorize
through observation, analysis, and evaluation, they
become able to engage in continuous self-professional
development.
According to Wallace (1991), Zeichner (2001),
and Zeichner and Liston (1996), reflective teaching
can promote the ability of teachers to use tools to
critically analyze and initiate changes in educational
contexts. As a consequence, teachers are “empowered
with knowledge, skill, and autonomy” (Tudor, 2001,
p. 23) to become engaged in their own professional
PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79
development as well as active participants in decision
making when they face the complexity of language
teaching and learning.
We believe that teachers have conditions to solve
problems regarding their educational practice, as
Zeichner and Liston (1996) affirm. As stated by the
authors, reflective teachers are capable of examining
their own practice and recognizing intrinsic values
attributed to their teaching in both institutional and
cultural contexts.
The above-mentioned perspectives of reflective
teaching will be taken into account to closely examine
the school-based experience during pre-service
teacher education courses. In our particular context,
teaching practice is developed in public schools (Jun-
ior High and High Schools), and Brazilian educational
legislation demands 400 hours of teaching practice
including classroom observations, theoretical study
in teacher education courses, and reports on teaching
practice. The main objective of teaching practice in
pre-service teacher education courses in Brazil is to
insert future teachers into school contexts so they can
observe and experience educational realities.
Bailey (2006) states, “teaching practice is a
component of many professional preparation
programs for teachers. It is predicated on the
assumption that novice teachers need guided practice
in learning how to teach” (p. 233). Normally, the
student teacher is placed with an experienced teacher
who teaches a particular subject in a school. This
future teacher is also supervised by a supervisors and/
or educators of the teacher education program based
in the student’s university.
For Hiebert, Morris, Berk, and Jansen (2007) the
practicum experience is an opportunity to learn from
teaching because student teachers have subject matter
knowledge and analytical skills that allow them to
analyze teaching and its effect on students’ learning.
Johnson (2009) argues that knowledge generated in
practice teaching is organized around problems that
65
Kaneko-Marques
emerge from practice and that are in contexts in
which such problems are constructed. For this reason,
analytical and reflective skills should be developed
during pre-service courses so that future teachers
are able to act autonomously in their classrooms and
study their own practice (Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
This idea of local knowledge is similarly
supported by Birch (2009), who conceives local and
global knowledge as glocalized pedagogy that “honors
the knowledge and experience of local teachers who
are experts in the cultural and social resources for
learning and the participants’ openness to learning”
(p. 134). According to the author, teachers should
be empowered to be capable of looking at their own
classrooms as a place to expand their practical and
theoretical knowledge.
In order to meet these objectives, future teachers
need to be stimulated to (re)construct their knowledge
and to reflect on their classroom practices during
teaching practice. The role of supervisors is crucial
in this formative process to ensure that this school
experience leads to professional development.
Given that the importance and relevance of
teaching practice for initial teacher education have
been made clear, the next section of this paper aims
to present different language teacher supervision
models. Then, supervisors’ roles in teaching practice
will be briefly discussed.
Language Teacher Supervision
and Supervisors’ Roles
In this section, we will discuss different super-
vision models and supervisors’ roles in these models.
Then, some relevant aspects of the use of videos of
classroom teaching will be presented.
Before discussing teacher supervision models
and supervisors’ roles in teaching practice, it
is important to present our comprehension of
supervision. This term has many distinct definitions,
generally borrowed from the fields of general
66 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
education and business and industry (Bailey, 2006).
According to Kilminster et al. (as cited in Muttar &
Mohamed, 2013), in broad terms, supervision can be
defined as the “provision of guidance and feedback
on matters of personal, professional and educational
development in the context of trainee’s experience
taking place” (p. 2).
In language teacher education, Wallace (1991)
established two different categories, general
supervision, which is concerned with administrative
aspects, and clinical supervision, which regards
formative issues. The latter can be separated into
a prescriptive approach and collaborative approach.
According to the author’s descriptions, clinical
supervision focuses on teaching and other classroom
aspects, and “it implies a rejection of the applied
science model and an acceptance of the reflective
model of professional development” (Wallace,
1991, p. 108). He understands clinical supervision
as an interactive session between a supervisor
and a teacher with the purpose of discussing and
analyzing previously observed classroom teaching
in order to promote professional development. It is
relevant to mention that clinical supervision might
be implemented in a variety of ways and that it is
understood differently by some authors; this will be
discussed later in this section.
Bailey (2006) argues that language teacher
supervision not only is concerned with positive
aspects, such as helping language teachers achieve
their professional development, but also includes less
positive results such as providing negative feedback,
ensuring that teachers adhere to program policies,
and even firing them. Some of the supervisors’
responsibilities might involve “visiting and evaluating
other teachers, discussing their lesson with them,
and making recommendations to them about what
to continue and what to change” (Bailey, 2006, p. 3).
However, these are not the only activities for which
supervisors are responsible; their duties also include
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching
teaching courses and dealing with administrative
tasks in teacher education programs.
According to Wallace (1991), a supervisor is
“anyone who has . . . the duty of monitoring and
improving the quality of teaching” (p. 107) teachers
in a given educational context. In addition, Gebhard
(1990) states that supervisors are responsible for
directing teachers’ teaching, offering suggestions,
modeling teaching, advising teachers, and evaluating
teachers’ teaching.
Sewall (2009) adds that super visors also
have to address another challenge because they
play a dual role; they serve as mentors, guiding
teachers, and as evaluators, assessing their teaching
practice. Furthermore, the author states that the
term “supervisor” has a hierarchical connotation
because it carries the meaning of an expert and
novice relationship. We strongly defend a genuine
collaborative and reflective environment between
supervisors and supervisees. 1 From our point of
view, to comprehend this supervisor and supervisee
relationship as a hierarchical one can be threatening
or even negative, and it might not be beneficial to
teacher development (Kayaoglu, 2012).
In teaching practice, this hierarchical idea of
placing student teachers with an experienced teacher
to observe and learn can be seen as an illustration
of the craft model previously discussed by Wallace
(1991). The author explains that according to this
model, “wisdom of the profession resides in an
experienced professional practitioner: someone who
is an expert in the practice of the craft” (p. 6), and it is
expected that trainees learn by imitating the expert’s
techniques and instructions. It is noticeable that
within this model of teaching practice, supervision
tends to reside in prescriptive approaches.
There are various models of language teacher
supervision; therefore, it is important to distinguish
1 The term supervisee is used by Ho (2003), and it refers to
future language teachers supervised by a teacher educator.
PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79
supervision for developmental and evaluative
purposes. The former is generally seen as a reflec-
tive and collaborative model, and the latter is
usually associated with prescriptive approaches
(Young, 2009).
Bourke (2001) presents four different models of
teacher supervision previously described by Tanner
and Tanner (as cited in Bourke, 2001): inspectional,
production, clinical, and developmental. According
to the first model, supervisors are inspectors,
and education is perceived as strict adherence to
governmental policies, methods, and materials. The
production model adopts a production-efficiency
approach to education in which teachers are similar
to factory workers who are responsible for preparing
their students for institutional assessments. In the
clinical model, a supervisor observes a lesson and
discusses teaching events in a face-to-face interaction
with the teacher to analyze teaching behaviors and
activities. This model usually involves pre-observation
conferences, and the actual observations, analysis,
and strategies to be used in supervision conferences
and post-conference analysis. However, there are
some problems with this model because it assumes
that elements of teaching events can be identified and
classified by observing student teachers, and it also
focuses on classroom instruction, ignoring curricular
development and educational planning. According to
this model, teachers should follow the instructions and
techniques to be applied in their language classrooms
in order to be considered efficient teachers.
The fourth model—the developmental model—is
defined as a cooperative problem-solving process,
aiming at stimulating discovery, inquiry, and problem
solving. It goes beyond specific teaching points
and provides a creative and collaborative learning
environment.
Bailey (2009) presents some other models
of supervision based on Freeman’s models of
intervention, which include the directive, nondirective,
67
Kaneko-Marques
and alternative options (Freeman as cited in Bailey,
2009). First, it is important to mention that Freeman
(1990) cites supervision as intervention, assuming
that it presupposes that future teachers can benefit
from the input and perceptions of a teacher educator
(which is what we understand as feedback). According
to the author, in directive forms of supervision,
the teacher educator makes comments on student
teachers’ practice and gives them suggestions to be
implemented in their classrooms. The main objective
is to improve the teacher’s performance according to
the supervisor’s criteria or to a (pre)conceived lesson
structure. In the alternative form of intervention,
the teacher educator selects an issue from classroom
teaching to be discussed with student teachers and
gives them some alternatives to solve this problem
in their teaching. The purpose of this model is to
improve student teachers’ decision making and to
develop their ability to articulate their knowledge
and experience by providing informed choices. Then,
in non-directive supervision, the teacher educator
gives student teachers the opportunity to make their
own choices without inferring or directing them so
that the student teachers can find their own solutions.
The model’s main goal is to “provide the student-
teacher with a forum to clarify perceptions of what
he or she is doing in teaching and for the educator to
fully understand” (Freeman, 1990, p. 112). This does
not necessarily mean that the teacher educator has
to accept future teachers’ points of view or to agree
with them.
Gebhard (1990) expands these models proposed
by Freeman (1990) by including another three models:
collaborative supervision, creative supervision and self-
explorative supervision. In the collaborative model,
the supervisor and the teacher work together to find
a hypothesis and to identify teaching and learning
problems. The supervisor participates in student
teachers’ decisions, trying to establish a sharing
relationship, instead of directing the student teachers.
68 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
The creative supervision model is defined as the
combination of the other four models (directive,
nondirective, alternatives, and collaborative) to
approach teachers’ specific needs in their educational
context. It presupposes freedom and creativity because
it allows for a combination of supervisory models,
shifting supervisory responsibilities from the supervisor
to other sources because it involves an application of
insights from other fields not found in any of the other
models. Additionally, the self-explorative model can be
interpreted as an extension of the creative supervision
model because it allows both teachers and supervisors
to gain self-awareness through observation and
exploration, as they both “explore teaching through
observation of their own and other’s teaching in order
to gain an awareness of teaching behaviors and their
consequences, as well as to generate alternative ways to
teach” (Gebhard, 1990, p. 163).
Regardless of the supervision model adopted
in teacher education programs, supervisors should
understand that these interactions might influence
and shape teachers’ thinking and behavior, as argued
by Cheng and Cheng (2013). As teacher educators
and researchers, we should bear in mind that teachers
perceive supervision differently because their
experiences are influenced by their personal values
and beliefs related to language teaching. We strongly
believe that due to these factors, teachers might
benefit distinctly from these interactions.
Within these different models of supervision,
according to Chamberlin (as cited in Young, 2009), an
effective supervisor should develop a clear program
to improve student teachers’ performance and to
nurture best practices through a process of reflective
questioning. We defend that the role of the supervisor
is to support teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
construction through collaborative discussions of
their pedagogical practice.
These discussions can be enriched with class video
recordings, which can be used as a tool to supplement
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching
post-observation sessions, as argued by Sewall (2009)
and Sherin and van Es (2005). Historically, videos have
been used in teacher education for different purposes
since the 1960s, including micro-teaching, interaction
analysis, video-based cases, and video club meetings
(Sherin & van Es, 2005). Among these different uses
and purposes of videos, one feature stands out: they
provide easy access to classroom interactions and
events that would be impossible to remember without
such a tool.
Sewall (2009) recommends that videotaped
lessons be analyzed by teachers and supervisors
cooperatively in order to be an effective instrument
for pedagogical development. The author also defends
the relevance of using videos in post-observation
sessions because they allow for a more focused
discussion of the lesson, as future teachers are able to
revisit specific details of their teaching.
In the next sections, the rationale and the research
design will be briefly presented in order to discuss
and analyze the interaction between teachers and
supervisors in collaborative post-observation sessions
with the support of video recordings of teaching
practice.
Rationale
This paper is mainly concerned with language
teacher supervision, as it proposes the discussion of
teacher supervisors’ roles in different supervision
models of teaching practice, emphasizing the
importance of the collaborative dialogue between
teachers and supervisors supported by video-recorded
classes in post-observation sessions.
Another indirect research objective we expect to
address in this study is reflecting on the problem of
teacher supervision concerning “what goes on during
and what happens afterwards” these interactions, as
it is rarely reported and analyzed, as indicated by
Cheng and Cheng (2013, p. 4). Often, teachers receive
feedback from their supervisors, indicating the need
PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79
for changes in their classroom practices; however,
they find difficulty in implementing such changes.
Bearing this background in mind, we agree
with Vieira’s (2009) affirmations on the importance
of pedagogical supervision based on a critical
pedagogy view. For this author, through this critical
perspective on teaching practice and supervision, it
is possible to transform pedagogical action, making
it more conscious and deliberative and, thus, more
susceptible to change, allowing for the recognition of
its complexity and uncertainty. Therefore, the main
goal of student teachers’ pedagogical supervision is to
support and help them to become supervisors of their
own practice, supplying them with the will and ability
to (re)conceptualize their pedagogical knowledge
and to participate, individually and/or collectively, in
the (re)construction of school pedagogy.
We believe this is a form by which future
teachers could be stimulated in their initial teacher
education courses to become investigators of
their own pedagogical practice. By studying their
own classrooms, they can improve their abilities
to (re)construct their knowledge about language
learning and teaching process, aiming at a better
comprehension of the complexities involved in this
process in real school situations.
By the same token, Pimenta (2009) agrees
with this relevance of teaching practice in teacher
education, as she considers teachers’ practice and
school pedagogy to be the starting and ending points
of initial teacher education courses. Future teachers
should be stimulated to “reframe formative processes
from the reconsideration of the knowledge needed
to teach, putting pedagogical and school teaching
practice as an object of analysis” (p. 17 [trans.]).
However, some initial teacher education courses
tend to fail in efficiently preparing teachers for
different educational realities, and as a consequence,
the professionals certified in these institutions begin
working in school contexts without knowing how
69
Kaneko-Marques
to address obstacles they find in their classrooms, as
Batista (2007) concluded in his research on teaching
practice and teacher education.
According to Zeichner (2003), the lack of
attention to teaching in social contexts in addition
to reflective practice taken as an individual action
encourage teachers to think of their problems as
“exclusively theirs, with no relation to other teachers’
problems or no connection to educational systems”
(p. 45 [trans.]). Thus, teachers are unable to engage in
a critical analysis of school situations in which they
live, as they only worry about their individual flaws.
This problematic scenario may have its origins
in teacher education models in which there is a
prevalence of transmission processes concerning
knowledge production and recurrence of theoretical
and practical dissociation (Lenoir, 2006). Therefore,
we support the idea that initial teacher education
should contribute to the development of a
personalized reflective practice, appraising not only
positive aspects but also small unsuccessful actions in
everyday school practice.
Investigation Design
and Methods
The goal of the main study partially described
here was to discuss the complexity of the pedagogical
knowledge (re)construction process, attempting
to understand prospective teachers’ pedagogical
strategies used to cope with problems in their teaching
practice. Bearing this in mind, the objective of this
paper is to discuss part of the collected data focusing
on different supervisors’ roles in distinct models
of supervision and to reflect on the collaborative
dialogue between teachers and supervisors in post-
observation sessions supported by video recordings.
Therefore, the main research design will be briefly
presented, but only data concerning language teacher
supervision, class recordings, and post-observation
sessions focusing on the collaborative and reflective
70 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
interactions between the researcher/supervisor and
student teachers will be examined.
The investigated context was a five-year Initial
Teacher Education Course offered at night by a
public university located in the state of Sao Paulo. The
subjects offered to future English teachers aimed at
the construction of communicative competence with
the development of oral and written skills and the
understanding of constituent elements of language
teaching and learning. This course study was executed
in teaching practice classes, which focused on the
discussion, reflection, and consolidation of theories
and variables regarding foreign language teaching and
learning. According to Brazilian educational legislation
for teacher education courses, teaching practice
should be completed in 400 hours through different
activities that normally include the observation of an
experienced teacher in a real school context, future
teachers’ teaching practice, theoretical and practical
classes at a university, and the elaboration of reflective
reports about this experience supervised by a teacher
educator. The participants of the main study were six
student teachers (of both genders and ranging from 20
to 24 years old) and the teacher educator, but for the
purposes of this paper, interaction excerpts only with
two future teachers will be presented.
Student teachers answered a questionnaire in the
beginning of the study. Considering their previous
language learning experiences, their responses
revealed that their years of study of the English
language ranged from two to eight years, and learning
contexts covered mainly language schools and private
tutoring. Only one student had previous formal
contact with the English language, which occurred in
public school. Of these six student teachers, four had
previous English teaching experience, and the other
two had Portuguese language teaching experience at
the time of the data collection.
The teacher educator has a degree in Literature
(Portuguese and English), as well as an MS and a PhD
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching

in Linguistics, and he has taught Teaching Practice in
the investigated teacher education course since 2002.
His research fields include English and Portuguese
teaching and learning and initial and continuing
language teacher education.
With the objective of supporting prospective
teachers’ language learning and their construction of
teaching knowledge through collaborative discussions
of their pedagogical practice, class video recordings
were used in teacher supervision to supplement
observations and to enrich post-observation sessions.
By using videos, pre-service teachers were provided
with opportunities to observe their pedagogical
activities and to become more reflective, as they could
analyze their own practice more deeply. The researcher
played the roles of teacher supervisor and teacher
educator because she observed and video-recorded
student teachers’ classes and provided feedback in
collaborative and reflective post-observation sessions.
This investigation can be characterized as
qualitative (Erickson, 1991; Larsen-Freeman &
Long, 1991) because it emphasizes the description
and analysis of events in a foreign language teacher
education course, focusing on the meanings of those
events for the participants (student teachers, teacher-
educator, and teacher education researcher). This
study can also be described as longitudinal because
data collection was completed during two semesters
in 2008 and 2009.
To guarantee the validity and reliability of this invest-
igation, data collection and analysis were based in the
use of the instruments and procedures shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Instruments and Procedures for Data Collection

Student Teachers’
Student Teachers Purpose Purpose
Classes
Class observations To study the elements
(video-recorded) of teaching practice.
To analyze proposed
Student teachers’ activities and student
To describe student
reflective journals teachers’ reflection
teachers’ profiles and
on teaching practice.
Questionnaires analyze their conceptions
To note on relevant
about EFL teaching and
Research field notes issues concerning
learning.
classroom events.
Post-observation
To reflect on teaching
reflective sessions
practice actions.
(video-recorded)
Teaching Practice Classes Purpose Teacher-Educator Purpose
To study both theoretical
Teaching practice
foundations and course
course content
objectives.
To investigate the
To describe teaching
Class observations Interview teacher educator’s profile
practice development
(video-recorded) (audio-recorded) and teacher education
process.
conceptions.
To note relevant
Research field notes issues concerning
classroom events.

PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79 71
Kaneko-Marques
Discussion
The primary sources of information for this
study were student teachers’ class observations and
recordings, post-observation reflective sessions, and
reflective journals. For their teaching practice, future
teachers taught EFL classes in pairs in regular schools
(Junior High and High School). First, their classes
were observed by the researcher/supervisor and video-
recorded, and copies of the recordings were given to
the student teachers so they could watch their class
with the teacher educator and highlight interesting
aspects of their teaching. The researcher/supervisor
also chose relevant excerpts from their classes to be
analyzed and discussed in post-observation sessions,
which were also video-recorded. These sessions took
place in the university context a few days after the class
was observed by the teacher. To initiate the discussion,
the researcher/supervisor posed questions about
prospective teachers’ impressions of the recorded
class, indicating both positive and negative aspects of
their lessons. Post-observation sessions were mainly
concerned with the reflection on their pedagogical
practice in order to investigate student teachers’
ability to identify and to solve problems faced in their
classroom practice. The main topics discussed with
student teachers involved teaching approaches and
procedures, teachers’ and students’ roles, grammar
instruction, vocabulary teaching, coherence between
activities and teaching objectives, and self-evaluation.
In one of these post-observation sessions,
two future teachers, Henry and Fred,2 mentioned
after watching their first class recordings that their
classroom procedures were mainly ruled by grammar-
translation techniques and that their activities were
teacher-centered. They were surprised to see that
they were reproducing teaching models they did
not believe in or support, as they realized that their
pedagogical discourse diverged from their classroom
2 Pseudonyms created by the researcher.
72 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
practices. These future teachers concluded that having
the opportunity to watch their classes and to reflect
on their own practice helped them identify and solve
pedagogical problems in their classrooms.
The example of these two student teachers
confirms Johnson’s (2009) assumption that
maintaining these types of dialogue and reflection
with teachers makes them actively link theoretical
knowledge to their experiential knowledge, stimul-
ating them to reorganize their pedagogical knowledge
as they create new forms of interpreting their
classroom practice.
In the first classes taught by Henry and Fred,
the proposed activities were teacher-centered, and
students performed them individually. Vocabulary
building was based on lists and translations, and
grammar instruction was ruled by traditional
perspectives because they conceived grammar
structure as an object to be explicitly presented and
decoded (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004), as we can see in the
excerpts below in which student teachers corrected
grammar-focused exercises:
Excerpt 1
Fred: He’s going to…?
Student: Wash his hands
Fred: His hands, as mãos dele (translation in Portuguese), right?
(Class 1)
Excerpt 2
Fred: “My” would be what kind of pronoun? Can you tell me?
Student: Possessive?
Fred: Possessive, right?
(Class 1)
Bearing these actions and procedures in mind,
during their first post-observation sessions, the
student teachers mentioned the following issues:
Excerpt 3
Fred: One of the things I think is that the class was not dynamic,
which is a negative aspect. The whole class, we stood there
talking, practically just talking.
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching
Researcher/Supervisor: And what do you think of that?
Fred: I think that because of the theme and the varied student
levels, I think it’s hard to work with other forms, but I think it
would be positive to try to change something.
Researcher/Supervisor: What would you change?
Fred: I think that there must be reading, but I think we have to
try to do it a little bit more dynamically. I don’t know, I think we
could try to work with reading in a different way…maybe give
students an activity that they would have to work in pairs or in
groups, so they could work alone, helping one another, then I
think it would be more dynamic for them.
Henry: Oh, I think it would be better.
Fred: They would know each other a bit more and I think that
they are still too shy and it would help in classroom dynamics.
(Post-Observation Session 1)
It was interesting to notice that Henry and Fred
perceived “something wrong” in their lessons, as
they commented that the lessons needed to be more
dynamic. The proposed activity to place students
in pairs or in groups would make their lessons
more student centered and would favor students’
interaction. In their next lessons, they implemented
these changes, so the activities were performed in
pairs and in groups and focused on reading and
discussing a text using reading strategies. Students
had to try to solve the comprehension questions on
their own without using a dictionary. To correct the
activity, the student teachers suggested that students
check their classmates’ answers, using peer correction
instead of teacher correction.
In the second post-observation session, the
student teachers compared their first lessons to the
activities proposed and the changes they implemented:
Excerpt 4
Henry: We changed our view of our students, we trusted them
and we did one activity.
Fred: We did one activity in which they had to do it on their
own, without our help, because we were bringing activities and
correcting them together with students, reading with them,
PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79
teaching grammar and such . . . so, we proposed an activity with
comic strips so they could do it on their own to give them more
autonomy that we detected we were not favoring.
Researcher/Supervisor: And what did you think of this activity?
Fred: I think that the result was good. First, because they had
contact with something different from what we were doing,
translating word by word, which was something we didn’t want
to do, but we were doing . . . Maybe it wasn’t perfect, but there
was an improvement, an evolution . . . and students started to
participate more, and I think they are feeling more confident.
(Post-Observation Session 2)
According to Henry and Fred, their new activities
gave more autonomy and confidence to their
students, who participated more actively in their
lessons. They criticized their teaching performance in
their first lessons, and they believed the implemented
changes brought about more positive results. At the
beginning of their teaching practice experience,
their lessons were structured on teacher presentation
and explanation, students’ activities, and teacher
correction. After the collaborative and reflective post-
observation sessions, the activities they proposed in
their classrooms involved discussions in pairs and in
groups and peer correction.
In teaching practice classes at the university,
the student teachers mentioned that due to the
heterogeneity of students’ language levels, they
did not know how to proceed, and because of this
difficulty, they ended up proposing teacher-centered
activities. In his reflective journal, Fred compared the
experience of observing an experienced teacher and
his own teaching:
Excerpt 5
I could notice how hard it is to (self)reflect on our own
pedagogical practice. It is much easier to observe and tell where
the other teacher was wrong, than to envision where we were
wrong. Even though it is hard, this should be an exercise that
we should always do, because it helps us improve our work as
teachers. (Reflective Journal 1)
73
Kaneko-Marques

Table 2. Pedagogical Actions, Reasons, and Knowledge

Pedagogical Activities/
Reasons/Meanings Knowledge/Experience
Procedures

Evaluation conceptions (summative Theoretical and practical

Application of diagnostic test. and formative). knowledge.
Learner’s performance and feedback. Research skills.

Personal values and intuition.

Teaching based on grammar Reflection on action and previous
Previous language learning
translation. knowledge (selection process).
experience.

Personal values and intuition.

Individual and teacher-centered Response to insecurity and
Previous language learning
activities. heterogeneity of students.
experience.

It can be seen that Fred considered self-evaluation
and reflection on his own practice as a necessary
activity for his professional development because
it can improve his performance as a teacher. He
emphasized self-reflection on his teaching activities
in the classroom as a way to (re)construct his
own practice, fostering continuous professional
development.
Table 2 summarizes student teachers’ pedagogical
activities and procedures during their class
observations and feedback sessions, indicating the
reasons for their actions with our interpretation of
possible sources of previous knowledge to address
their classroom needs and teaching problems.
In order to justify their pedagogical actions and
procedures in the language classroom, the student
teachers were influenced by their personal values
and intuition about language teaching and learning,
previous language learning experiences, theoretical
and practical knowledge, and research skills. These
elements relate to different levels of reflection.
When based on informal knowledge constructed by
experiences and intuition about language teaching
and learning, future teachers are oriented by practical
reflection (Liberali, 2008). However, when they
present explanations based on research skills and
theoretical and practical knowledge constructed
throughout their teacher education course, they are
guided by critical reflection.
We support the argument that teachers need
both theoretical and practical knowledge and
research skills to engage in continuous professional
development and in the production of knowledge
about the language classroom. This way, teachers
will be able to question education activities and
educational contexts, oriented by critical reflection
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
Another interesting aspect regarding these
reflective and collaborative post-observation sessions
enriched by video-recorded lessons is that future
teachers actively participated in the lesson discussion
and analysis. They contributed to the majority of the
reflective comments, which shows their development
of autonomy, similarly to Sewall’s results (2009).
In these sessions, both supervisors and supervisees
had the chance to highlight relevant aspects to be
collaboratively discussed and analyzed, which favored
equal dialogues without hierarchical connotations
between the expert and novice teacher, as one of the
participants mentioned in his reflective journal:

74 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching

Excerpt 6 development as educators. They tried to understand

It is important to emphasize that what helped us in these
reflections was the participation of the researcher in our teaching
practice activities, because she discussed with us throughout our
course how our classes were taught. (Fred’s Reflective Journal 1)
The results indicated that pre-service teachers
with opportunities to observe their pedagogical
actions through videos were able to become more
reflective and to provide deeper analysis of their
practice in collaborative post-observation sessions.
It was also observed that due to the use of videos,
student teachers could distance themselves from their
own practice, which contributed to their analysis of
and reflection on their pedagogical actions.
Conclusions
In this section, we will present the conclusions
of this study, pointing out some positive aspects of
the collaborative and reflective dialogues generated
in post-observation sessions with the use of video
recordings in teaching practice. Then, some limi-
tations of this study will be presented.
Through self-evaluation and reflection in video-
supported post-observation sessions, future teachers
were able to analyze their pedagogical practice, (re)
constructing it to favor their students’ language-
learning process and contributing to their professional
the reasons behind their pedagogical actions,
indicating possible ways to change language teaching
and learning situations according to the needs of their
educational contexts.
As both teachers and supervisors collaboratively
analyzed class video recordings, an equal and supportive
relationship between them could be developed.
Furthermore, by viewing their lessons, teachers were
able to experience a different reflective practice, as
they developed new ways to examine their classrooms
and to critically self-evaluate their pedagogical
actions. During the reflective and collaborative post-
observation sessions, the student teachers established
connections with theoretical course content, previous
learning and teaching experiences, and their personal
knowledge when analyzing their pedagogical actions
in videotaped lessons.
Through collaborative supervision, future teachers
were able to engage with their own professional
development and become active participants in
decision making regarding the complexity of language
teaching and learning. They could also investigate
their own pedagogical practice, aiming at a better
comprehension of the language-teaching process in
real school situations, as they were able to look at their
own classrooms as a place to expand their practical
and theoretical knowledge.

Figure 1. Reflective Cycle of Teaching Practice

Personal Values
and Intuitions

Previous Language
Research Skills
Learning Experience

Teaching and Teaching Teaching Experience

Learning Objectives
Practice

Theoretical and
Educational Contexts
Practical Knowledge

PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79 75
Kaneko-Marques
Figure 1 summarizes the different dimensions
involved in student teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
(re)construction after video-supported post-
observation sessions.
During the sessions, it was possible to note that
student teachers who observed their pedagogical
actions through videos became more reflective
and self-evaluative, developing their investigation
skills, as they identified problems and searched for
answers. When searching for these answers, they
were influenced by their previous language-learning
and teaching experiences and by theoretical and
practical knowledge concerning language teaching
and learning. It is important to recognize that
this knowledge is viewed differently according to
their personal values and intuitions of what works
in an EFL classroom. We believe future teachers
also considered their learners’ objectives, taking
variables of educational contexts into account when
implementing changes in their teaching practice.
Thus, we conclude that with collaborative
supervision, teacher candidates can be encouraged to
identify and understand the complexities of language
learning and teaching locally and globally, instead
of formulating technical and universal solutions
that might not cater to the specific needs of different
educational contexts.
One of the limitations of this study was that the
researcher/supervisor did not observe prospective
teachers’ classes over an entire school year and
that other relevant aspects of language teaching
could have been discussed with more collaborative
and reflective sessions and videotaped lesson
debriefings. It is also important to implement these
practices in other contexts of teacher supervision,
involving more teachers and supervisors to analyze
the similarities and differences of the results
obtained. In addition, all classes were observed and
videotaped by the researcher/supervisors. It would
be interesting to suggest that teachers themselves
76 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
record their lessons, delegating them more auto-
nomy in this process.
Collaborative supervision through videos of
classroom teaching can be implemented in other
teacher education programs, but the particularities of
those contexts should be analyzed in order to make
this suggestion feasible for both supervisors and
student teachers because it demands extra time from
teaching practice classes. Another important aspect
to consider in its implementation is related to teacher
education course curricula, which need to guarantee
formative spaces for the use of video programs aiming
at teachers’ professional development.
Furthermore, supervisors should be able to
develop strategies to improve student teachers’
teaching practice and nurture reflective practice.
They are also expected to support teachers’ language
learning and teaching knowledge construction
through collaborative reflections on their pedagogical
practice. Because of these responsibilities, they
should be highly qualified and experienced, as they
need to be knowledgeable about teacher supervision,
constructive feedback and collaborative projects in
teacher education.
References
Alarcão, I., Leitão, A., & Roldão, M. C. (2009). Prática
pedagógica supervisionada e feedback formativo co-
construtivo [Supervised pedagogical practice and
formative-constructive feedback]. Revista Brasileira de
Formação de Professores, 1(3), 2-29.
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-
based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667329.
Bailey. K. M. (2009). Language teacher supervision. In A.
Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
second language teacher education (pp. 269-278). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Batista, L. O. (2007). A disciplina de prática de ensino de
língua inglesa vista por professores recém-formados
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching
[English teaching practice from the novice teachers’
perspectives]. Contexturas: Ensino Crítico de Língua
Inglesa, 12, 75-90.
Birch, B. M. (2009). The English language teacher in global
civil society. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bourke, J. M. (2001). The role of the TP TESL Supervisor.
Journal of Education for Teaching: International
Research and Pedagogy, 27(1), 63-73. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/02607470120042546.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2009). Second language teacher
education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education
(pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Celani, M. A. A. (2000). A relevância da linguística aplicada
na formulação de uma política educacional Brasileira
[The relevance of applied linguistics in Brazilian educa-
tional policy]. In M. B. M. Fortkamp & L. M. Tomitch
(Eds.), Aspectos da linguística aplicada: estudos em
homenagem ao professor Hilário Inácio Bohn (pp.
17-32). Florianópolis, BR: Editora Insular.
Cheng, C. W. Y., & Cheng, Y. S. (2013). The supervisory
process of EFL teachers: A case study. TESL-EJ, 17(1).
Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/
issues/volume17/ej65/ej65a1/.
Erickson, F. (1991). Advantages and disadvantages of quali-
tative research design on foreign language research. In
B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research
and the classroom (pp. 338-353). Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company.
Freeman, D. (1990). Intervening in practice teaching. In
J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language
teacher education (pp. 103-117). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Freeman, D. (2009). The scope of second language teacher
education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education
(pp. 11-19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gebhard, J. G. (1990). Models of supervision: Choices. In
J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language
PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79
teacher education (pp. 156-166). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Gebhard, J. G. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns & J. C.
Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second lan-
guage teacher education (pp. 250-258). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007).
Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal
of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47-61. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0022487106295726.
Ho, B. (2003). Time management of final year undergrad-
uate English projects: Supervisees’ and the supervisor’s
coping strategies. System, 31(2), 231-245. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00022-8.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Trends in second language teacher
education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher educa-
tion (pp. 20-29). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Kayaoglu, M. N. (2012). Dictating or facilitating: The
supervisory process for language teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(10), 103-117. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n10.4.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrate-
gies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language
teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). Second lan-
guage acquisition research methodology. In D. Larsen-
Freeman & M. H. Long (Eds.), An introduction to
second language acquisition research (pp. 10-51). New
York, NY: Longman.
Lenoir, Y. (2006). Pesquisar e formar: repensar o lugar e a
função da prática de ensino [Research and education:
Rethinking the position and function of teaching prac-
tices]. Educação e Sociedade, 27(97), 1299-1325. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302006000400011.
77
Kaneko-Marques
Liberali, F. C. (2008). Formação crítica de educadores:
questões fundamentais [Critical education for educa-
tors: Fundamental questions]. Taubaté, BR: Cabral
Editora.
Muttar, S. S., & Mohamed, H. K. (2013). The role of English
language supervisors as perceived by English language
teachers. Misan Journal for Academic Studies, 12(22),
1-12. Retrieved from http://misan-jas.com/pdf%20
22/12%20%20%2022.pdf.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in
research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1017/S0267190504000066.
Pimenta, S. G. (2009). Formação de professores: identidade
e saberes da docência [Teacher education: Identity and
teaching knowledge]. In S. G. Pimenta (Org.), Saberes
pedagógicos e atividade docente (pp. 15-34). São Paulo,
BR: Editora Cortez.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sewall, M. (2009). Transforming supervision: Using video
elicitation to support preservice teacher-directed
reflective conversations. Issues in Teacher Education,
18(2), 11-30. Retrieved from http://www-tep.ucsd.edu/_
files/edd/05sewall.pdf.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to sup-
port teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3),
475-491. Retrieved from http://www.professional-
vision.org/pdfs/SherinvanEs_JTATE.pdf.
Sturm, L. (2008). A pesquisa-ação e a formação teórico-
crítica de professores de línguas estrangeiras [Action
research and critical foreign language teacher educa-
tion]. In G. Gil & M. H. Vieira-Abrahão (Eds.), Edu-
cação de professores de línguas: os desafios do formador
(pp. 339-350). Campinas, BR: Pontes.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vieira, F. (2009). Para uma visão transformadora da
supervisão pedagógica [Towards a transforma-
78 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
tive visiono of pedagogical supervision]. Educação e
Sociedade, 29(105), 197-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S0101-73302009000100010.
Vieira-Abrahão, M. H. (2001). Formação acadêmica e a ini-
ciação profissional do professor de línguas: um estudo
da relação teoria e prática [Academic education and
professional initiation of language teachers: A study of
the relationship between theory and practice]. Trab-
alhos em Linguística Aplicada, 37, 61-81.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A
reflective approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Williams, M. (2001). Learning teaching: A social construc-
tivist approach-theory and practice or theory with
practice? In, H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.),
Theory in language teacher education (pp. 11-20). Essex,
UK: Pearson Education.
Young, S. (2009). Supporting and supervising teachers
working with adults learning English. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://
www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/supporting.html.
Zeichner, K. M. (2001). Educating reflective teachers for
learner-centered education: Possibilities and contra-
dictions. Proceedings of 16º Encontro Nacional de Profes-
sores Universitários de Língua Inglesa. Londrina, Brazil.
Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Formando professores reflexivos
para a educação centrada no aluno: possibilidades e
contradições [Educating reflective teachers for learner-
centered education: Possibilities and contradictions].
In R. L. L. Barbosa (Org.), Formação de professores:
desafios e perspectivas (pp. 35-55). São Paulo, BR: Edi-
tora Unesp.
Zeichner, K. M. (2008). Uma análise crítica sobre a “reflexão”
como conceito estruturante na formação docente [A
critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher edu-
cation]. Educação e Sociedade, 29(103), 535-554. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302008000200012.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching:
An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
 Reflective Teacher Supervision Through Videos of Classroom Teaching

About the Author

Sandra Mari Kaneko-Marques is an English Professor at UNESP-FCL-Araraquara (Brazil) and holds a
degree in English, an MA in Linguistics and a PhD in Applied Linguistics. She has experience as an English
teacher in high schools, language institutes, and universities. Her research areas are teacher education, lan-
guage teaching, and English for academic purposes.

PROFILE Vol. 17, No. 2, July-December 2015. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 63-79 79